halofandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:MA37 Individual Combat Weapon System
Info error? "The MA37 (more formally Individual Combat Weapon System, Caliber 7.62 mm, MA37) is an air-cooled, gas-operated rifle firing 7.62x51mm ammunition. It is magazine-fed and is capable of fully automatic fire. The MA37 (MA5 for Marines and Navy) first entered service with the UNSC in 2437, it has remained the primary service rifle of all branches of the UNSC ever since." Bungie updated the ordnance category, so the article has an error. This weapon is classifed as MA5 for marines/navy and MA37 for the army. Biomeister 02:33, January 29, 2010 (UTC) :Whoever keeps adding that it's been replaced, stop. Its an MA5 series weapon, but it's been redesignated by the UNSC Army. As far as we (and you) know, it's still serving with Army personnel.-- Administrator Specops306 - Qur'a 'Morhek 09:05, January 29, 2010 (UTC) Move Whatever those guys up there said. This would just be another variant of the MA5 series, since according to the Army, it's MA37, but to the UNSCMC and Navy, it's the MA5. Now although Specops306 said it was another variant and was re-designated, I would protest to this. It's known the Army as MA37, not designated by the army. For the marines and the navy, it's known to them as the MA5, and not designated by them as the MA5. Therefore, no name change. Furthermore, ...it has remained the primary service rifle of all branches of the UNSC ever since. Isn't this the MA5? So I guess we should move this to "Unnamed MA5 Variant". Even if, yes, I agree that we should name it MA37 instead of a random name saying we don't even know the name, MA37 refers to MA5, not the variant. [[User:PX173|''PX]][[User_talk:PX173|''1]]7'' 14:16, January 30, 2010 (UTC) :I vehemently disagree. Apparently, it's somewhat common in the military to have two designation for a weapon system, one example being the M40 rifle used by the US Marines and the M24 Sniper Weapon System used by the US Army. Both weapon systems utilise the same rifle, the Remington 700 rifle. I don't know why but that's just how it is.Smoke'd! Thus, the article stays and will not be moved. :"Ever since", meaning on that current date which would be October 2552. Seeing that the MA37/MA5?? has been around for 115 years, it is likely that it would cease to be in use after October 2552 once a new rifle system has been released to all UNSC branches (Hint: ''MA5B). Additionally, seeing that we know nothing about the Marine version of the MA37 ICWS, it is best to just leave the article as it is (which could potentially have a different role/mechanics/etc).- 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 14:32, January 30, 2010 (UTC) ::You don't get my point, do you? "MA37" refers to "MA5", not the variant, hence "MA5 for Marines and Navy". It does not refer to the variant. As for the 115 years of service, the slope regarding our technological development has been getting less and less steep. It's like the Nanosuit in Crysis; it was the "perfect" armor(or whatever), and it would be hard to make a "better" one. But there was a "better" one. It's the Nanosuit 2. Just like the MA5, they could just make newer variants instead of a completely new weapon system. And do we even have a policy regarding what we should name it as: what the Marines and Spartans call it? or what the Army calls it? [[User:PX173|''PX]][[User_talk:PX173|''1]]7'' 22:54, January 30, 2010 (UTC) :::Do we know the full name of the MA5 for the Marines? Do we know how much the Marines' MA5 differ from the MA37 in terms of role, performance, functionality or mechanics? All Bungie gave us is ''"Marines refer it as MA5" and seeing that this weapon was revealed to us as an Army version, it should stay as an Army rifle.外国人(7alk) 23:03, January 30, 2010 (UTC) ::::*sigh* Did it say it was a completely different rifle? It just mentioned there was a difference in the name. Nothing about technical information, just the name. [[User:PX173|''PX]][[User_talk:PX173|''1]]7'' 23:05, January 30, 2010 (UTC) :::::It could be. MA5 is a modular system, meaning it could be configured to function differently..外国人(7alk) 23:08, January 30, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Yeah, ''could be. I thought we didn't take any chances unless we're more than 100% sure, with enough official material released. [[User:PX173|''PX]][[User_talk:PX173|''1]]7'' 00:35, January 31, 2010 (UTC) :::::::And yours is not official too. Too broad. ;) Anyway, we don't take sides (Army are cool too, why should we just stick to Marines')... so, just leave this article be.外国人(7alk) 00:39, January 31, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::I guess I can't agree. Bungie says that it and the MA5 are one and the same so we need to accept that. It is very, very common for weapons to be called different things by different branches of the military. Bungie gives no evidence whatsoever that they are different in the least bit. Instead, they give every reason to support their similarity in just one sentence! We need to stop deciding what we think is right and look at the facts given to us. ::::::::More importantly (and this is also the answer to Ascension's questions a few paragraphs above), Bungie doesn't say that it's just part of the MA5 series, but rather '''the' MA5. As in the first. It is not an "unidentified MA5 variant." It does not say it is part of the "MA5 series". It is referred to with a definite article. Also, because it was put in to service long before the second in the series (the MA5B) saw the light of day, common sense tells us to accept this as the canon anyways thanks to the information the fine folks at Bungie gave us. Anyways, I guess the main reason I would support the move is because the MA5 is a name used by an enormously greater percentage of the military. The Navy and Marine Corps vastly outnumbers the Army guys. We need to take Bungie's statements as the are and find a middleground that we can all agree on.--Nerfherder1428 01:51, January 31, 2010 (UTC)